Re: No future for DB2

DA Morgan wrote:

> Buck Nuggets wrote:

>> db2 has less moving parts to worry about

> Oracle has one ... RMAN ... how many less does DB2 have?

Hmm, most databases I've worked with don't require an entire subsystem to make restoration humanly possible. Granted - oracle gives a vast variety of restoration options, still - most databases don't need entire manuals on just backup & recovery: just a single chapter in a book. A chapter that a junior dba can easily master, and can be expected to perform correctly in a pinch.

And rman doesn't insulate the dba from all of the complexity of error stacks, scns, resetlog/incomplete recovery complexities, etc. Nor does a GUI & responsitory-based approach beat a simple text backup command without bringing up a variety of other challenges. In the management of remote databases over various line speeds, GUIs leave a lot to be desired. In the reliable and mature management of any software, the ideal process involves the use software configuration management practices & tools (cvs, etc), testing of the process in a test environment and checkout to production. Not, a manual reentry of data into a production repository.

So yeah, RMAN is great, and I won't hesitate to use it on my next oracle project. But it's only great compared to the oracle alternatives. Which is a problem that appears peculiar to oracle. Received on Mon Aug 01 2005 - 00:01:03 CDT